Identifyingmoderatorsofbrandattachmentfordrivingcustomerpur...

Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

JBR-09087; No of Pages 13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Identifyingmoderators of brand attachment for driving customer purchase intention oforiginal vs counterfeits of luxury brands

Hans Ruediger Kaufmann a,⁎, Dan Alex Petrovici b, Cid Gonçalves Filho c, Adriano Ayres c

a University of Applied Management Studies Mannheim, Germanyb Kent Business School, University of Kent, United Kingdomc Universidade Fumec, Brazil

⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Applied ManaBox 240364, Neckarauer Street, 68173 Mannheim, Germa

E-mail address: [email protected] (

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.0030148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kaufmann, H.R., et acounterfeits of luxury brands, Journal of Busi

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 1 June 2015Received in revised form 1 November 2015Accepted 1 February 2016Available online xxxx

Few studies have examined the relationships betweenbrands and consumers in the context of counterfeiting. In thiscontext, this research aims to explore how the attachment of a consumer with a luxury brand can affect her/hisdecision to buy counterfeits, and how this relates to her/his public self-consciousness. Two survey based studieswere conducted among potential counterfeit buyers in Brazil. A sample of middle-class female fashion shoppersfrom Brazil was used to test the hypotheses in study 1 (n=532) and study 2 (n=276). Innovatively, this researchprovides convincing implications for the need to differentiate counterfeiting theory between emerging and devel-oped economies. Evidence of the positive impact of actual self-congruence and ideal self-congruence on brandattachment to luxury brands in emerging economies is provided. The role of brand attachment is in contrast tofindings reported in other emerging economies. Interestingly, the results demonstrate that the purchase of counter-feits is a more hedonic process compared to the purchase of originals (study 1). The effect of brand attachment onthewillingness to buy counterfeitsmay vary according to how attachment ismeasured (study 2). Yet, brand attach-ment has a consistent positive effect on intentions to purchase originals. Producing increments in the emotionalbrand attachment level can reduce the behavioural intentions of purchasing counterfeits. Hence, the findingssuggest that the creation of emotional links with brands can be an appropriate strategy to reduce counterfeiting.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Brand attachmentCounterfeitingLuxury productsEmerging economiesSelf-congruence

1. Introduction

The luxury industry has a significant share in the global market ofluxury brands growing from about 90 million consumers in 1995 upto 330 million in 2013 (Bain e Company, 2013). Brazil represents anattractive market for luxury entrepreneurs, capturing investmentsof US$ 2 billion a year Modesto (2007) notwithstanding the nationalculture of Brazil thwarting entrepreneurial behaviour (Woodside,Bernal, & Conduras, 2015). Brazil is the eighth country in the world con-sidering losses in tax revenues amounting to US $ 15 billion each year(Havocscope, 2016).

A significant challenge for luxury brands remains the growingnumber of companies that are counterfeiting and creating a parallelor shadow market (Kapferer & Michaut, 2014). Yoo and Lee (2005)define counterfeiting as the practice of manufacturing or sellingproducts using a brand owner's trademark without the permissionor the trademark owner's oversight. Usually, these goods are cheaperand inferior in quality. While counterfeits may stimulate demand in

gement Studies Mannheim, P.Ony.H.R. Kaufmann).

l., Identifyingmoderators of bness Research (2016), http://d

an economy (Givon, Mahajan, & Muller, 1995) and provide social statusand symbolism at a fraction of the original cost (Nia & Zaichowsky,2000), counterfeit productsmislead consumers bymaking them believethat they are an original brand (Kim, Cho, & Johnson, 2009). Hence,counterfeit products bring serious economic losses for the original luxurybrands.

While the growth of luxurymarkets is caused by emerging countries(Kapferer & Michaut, 2014), most of the research about counterfeitingwas carried out in developed economies (Eisend & Schuchert-Guler,2006; Staake, Thiesse, & Fleisch, 2009). According toOECD (2007) studies,counterfeiting differs among countries due to a series of factors (e.g. howlocal government deal and combat piracy). Sheth (2011) outlinesfive characteristics of emerging markets (heterogeneity, sociopoliticalgovernance, chronic shortage of resources, unbranded competition andinadequate infrastructure) that are fundamentally different from thetraditional industrialized economies. Yet, the speed of transformationhas been somewhat too high for the enforcement agencies and manycountries are now emerging as both large producers and consumers offakes with counterfeiting being also considered a source of income forthe population and a form of transference of technology (Staake et al.,2009).

Previous studies show significant differences between low and highincome buyers of counterfeits in emerging economies, where the income

rand attachment for driving customer purchase intention of original vsx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.003

mailto:[email protected]

Journal logo


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963


2 H.R. Kaufmann et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

differences are higher than in developed countries (Bacha, Strehlau, &Strehlau, 2013; Gambim & Nogani, 2013). In the same vein, Hennigset al. (2013) compared ten different nations in a large survey thatincluded Brazil, United States, India and Germany, exploring luxuryproducts. They observed that the importance of the above mentionedfactors is significantly different among these countries confirming theneed for conceptual differentiation.

An urgent need for more research on the relative importance ofdeterminants of counterfeiting and the effect on individuals and theeconomy is noted (Bosworth, 2006; Yoo & Lee, 2012). This researchaims to cover a still existing knowledge gap on the antecedents ofpurchasing counterfeited luxury products in emerging economies.Whilstcounterfeiting is seen as a global phenomenon (Europol, 2015), the BRICcountries of Brazil (Provedel, 2009), Russia (Salnik, 2011), India (Europol,2015) and, especially, China (Yao, 2006) exhibit a concerning high largescale production of counterfeited products. As emerging countries offera higher level of vertical socialmobility, a potential positive effect of coun-terfeits is seen in that theymay actually advertise the sales of the originalbrand (Qian, 2008, in Kapferer & Michaut, 2014). However, this mightalienate more exclusive clients, as indicated by Kapferer and Michaut(2014, p.61): “A sense of exclusivity thus is of paramount importance,but this sense gets diminished by the multiplication of wearers of thesame logo, real or fake, such that aspirational consumers might abandonwidespread brands — a negative externality of the growth of counter-feits”. In this context, Manser (2013) points to a still existing researchgap in explaining purchasing behaviour of counterfeit luxury productsin emerging economies. Manser (2013) suggests to differentiatebehavioural patterns within cultures (i.e. between China and otherAsian cultures), across cultures and, going beyond cultures, also betweenindividual countries in emerging markets.

Eisend and Schuchert-Guler (2006) conducted ameta-analysis of 29empirical studies about counterfeiting and observed that only twostudies have focused on particular brands within a product category(Leisen & Nill, 2001; Yoo & Lee, 2005), They also observe that researchwas mostly conducted with consumers from Asia or North America.Most studies relate to different product categories and only few arerelated to luxury brands (Mourad & Vallete-Florence, 2011). Manystudies on counterfeiting examine its effect on brand evaluation of theoriginal brand. These studies overlook the effect of a brand on the inten-tion to purchase originals and counterfeits (Commuri, 2009; Cademan,Henriksson, & Nyqvist, 2012; Hieke, 2010; Nia & Zaichowsky, 2000).

With some exceptions (Randhawa, Calantone, & Vorhees, 2015;Raza, Ahad, Shafqat, Aurangzaib, & Rizwan, 2014), there is sparseknowledge on the role of brand attachment on purchasing intentionsof counterfeits. Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) proposed a scaleof consumer emotional attachment to brands but acknowledged aneed to test the generalizability of the scale by using non-studentsamples. This paper tests the role of their scale in the context ofpurchasing behaviour towards counterfeits based on data from amore homogenous population of consumers. The data is likely to displaytherefore a larger scale variance. A need to evaluate the dimensionality ofbrand attachment, given that two scenarios of single and second-orderfactors were proposed in the literature (Park, MacInnis, Priester,Eisingerich, & Iacobucci 2010), is also highlighted.

In summary, notwithstanding the importance of brands on consumerbehaviour, there is gap involving the influence of brand (more specificallybrand attachment and brand self-congruence) on the purchasing of coun-terfeits and originals. A lack of studies on luxury markets in emergingeconomies is also noticeable.

This work is innovative in this field exploring how personal andbrand-related factors, including two alternative measures of brandattachment, affect purchase intentions of brands and counterfeitsin the emerging market of Brazil. In other words, the paper expandsYoo's and Lee's (2009) framework of consumer purchasing behaviourof counterfeits by integrating the role of public self-consciousness, actualand ideal self-congruence (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011)

Please cite this article as: Kaufmann, H.R., et al., Identifyingmoderators of bcounterfeits of luxury brands, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://d

and attachment to luxury brands (Park et al., 2010). Thus the paperincludes a wide range of personal as well as, so far, overlookedbrand-related factors in providing an improved understanding ofpurchasing behaviour towards counterfeits vis-a-vis original brands.A very comprehensive and conscientious literature review points outthat this paper innovatively measures the impact of two ways ofmeasuring brand attachment onpurchasing counterfeits. The relationshipof this latter conceptwith types of self and purchasing behaviour of coun-terfeits and originals is considered. Finally, the paperfills a knowledge gapon purchasing behaviour of counterfeits in emerging economies.

The objectives of the paper are: i) to explore the role of types of per-ceived benefits of buying counterfeits and consumer characteristics onpurchasing intentions of original luxury brands and their counterfeits;ii) to investigate how brand attachment impacts these purchasingintentions; iii) to test the moderating role of product involvement,self-esteem and public self-consciousness in the relationships betweenideal, actual self-congruence and brand attachment. An evaluation ofwhether the effects of brand attachment on behavioural intentions aredependent on how attachment is measured will be undertaken.

2. Conceptual underpinning and hypotheses development

The first stream of research on counterfeits focused on supply factors(Bamossy & Scammon, 1985). In subsequent research the focus shifted todemand factors (Nia & Zaichowsky, 2000; Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009).While past studies emphasized price and quality in understandingpurchasing behaviour of counterfeits (Cordell, Wongtada, & Kieschnick,1996), calls aremade tomove beyond these purely economic antecedents(Poddar, Foreman, Banerjee, & Ellen, 2012).

Eisend and Schuchert-Guler (2006) carried out a first meta-analysisregarding the reasons for why consumers buy and use counterfeits.They identify four categories of factors that influence purchasing behav-iour of counterfeits: personal, product-related, social and cultural context,and purchase situation and mood.

Personal factors are reported extensively in the literature(Chakraborty, Allred, & Bristol, 1996; Misbah & Rahman, 2015;Penz & Stöttinger, 2005) and include demographic and psychographicvariables such as consumers' income, education, occupation, attitudesand personality traits. Product-related factors are associated with price,product attributes, brand image and scarcity (Jenner & Artun, 2005;Poddar et al., 2012; Wilcox et al., 2009). The social and cultural contextcategory includes factors such as cultural norms (Franses & Lede, 2015)or the extent to which the brand fulfills social goals, as well as the influ-ence of family and friends (Prendergast, Chuen, & Phau, 2002; Wilcoxet al., 2009). Purchase situation and mood-related factors (Harvey &Walls, 2003) can moderate the influence of attitudes on intentions(Eisend&Schuchert-Guler, 2006) andprovide perceived symbolismasso-ciated with a purchase (Gentry, Putrevu, & Schultz, 2006).

The paper is grounded into the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the attachment theory (Bowlby, 1979).According to TRA, attitudes towards performing a behaviour are goodpredictors of the intention of that specific behaviour. In this studyattitudes towards buying counterfeits were found to be driven byhedonic and economic benefits. Hedonic benefits are more subjectiveand related to issues such as pleasure, personal benefits, self-expressionand entertainment (Ahtola, 1985; Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Theseattitudes to the hedonic benefits of counterfeits represent a key driverof purchase intentions (Yoo & Lee, 2009). Relative to hedonic benefits,utilitarian benefits are thought to have a greater influence on loyaltytowards the originals (Chiu, Hsieh, Chang, & Lee, 2009). Yoo and Lee(2009) hold that consumers, who have more hedonic benefits thanutilitarian benefits, will easily accept counterfeiting items. Therefore,these two types of benefits are regarded to be antecedents of intentionsto purchase counterfeits.

The attachment theory posits that one's emotional attachment toan object predicts the individual interaction with that object. These



3H.R. Kaufmann et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

interactions can take various forms such as: favourable attitudes towardsthe object (Thomson et al., 2005); a material centrality of the objectin personal life (Richins, 1994); mental representation and schemesrelated to self (Holmes, 2000); strong separation distress (Bowlby,1979) and a strong commitment to engaging into a long-term relation-ship with the object (Thomson et al., 2005). The material centrality is akey dimension of materialism which increases the desire for counterfeits(Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2009; Yoo & Lee, 2009). In thisstudy emotional brand attachment is anchored into the attachmenttheory.

Yoo and Lee (2009) develop a model of antecedents of purchaseintentions of counterfeits versus original luxury fashion brands. Theypropose that economic and hedonic benefits of counterfeits, materialismand the frequency of past purchases of counterfeits have a positive impacton purchases of counterfeits. Purchase intentions of originals, however,have a negative effect. Yet, their study overlooks product-related,purchase-related or socio-cultural factors.

This research proposes a model of consumer purchase of luxurycounterfeits versus originals by holistically integrating (Fig. 1) anextensive range of personal factors as well as brand-related factorsin the context of the emerging economy of Brazil.

This paper expands the current frameworks of the extant literatureon consumer purchasing behaviour of counterfeits (Chiu et al., 2009;Mourad & Vallete-Florence, 2011; Triandewi & Tjiptono, 2013; Yoo &Lee, 2009). The model integrates the role of public self-consciousness(Bushman, 1993; Marquis, 1998; Nia & Zaichowsky, 2000), actual,ideal self-congruence (Ahna, Ekincib, & Lid, 2013; Hosany & Martin,2012; Malär et al., 2011; Mugge, Schifferstein, & Schoormans, 2006)and attachment to luxury brands (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009; Kim, Lim,Baek, & Kim, 2015; Park et al. 2011). Specifically, the proposed modelexpands Yoo's and Lee's (2009) framework of consumer purchasingbehaviour of counterfeits by integrating the personal and brand-relatedfactors such as attachment to luxury brands (Park et al. 2011), actual,ideal self-congruence and moderating factors such as self-esteem, publicself-consciousness and product involvement (Malär et al., 2011). Further-more, the effect of two types of measures of brand attachment on inten-tions to buy original brands and counterfeits is evaluated.

Concerning personal factors, attitudes towards buying counterfeitsdriven by economic and hedonic benefits are consistently cited in theliterature as antecedents of consumer behaviour (Arnold & Reynolds,2003; Babin et al., 1994; Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Dhar & Wertenbroch,2000; Sarkar, 2011). Specifically regarding to counterfeits, extensiveresearch from Chiu et al. (2009), Dodge, Edwards, and Fullerton (1996),Nia and Zaichowsky (2000), Triandewi and Tjiptono (2013) and Yooand Lee (2009) suggest the impact of economic and hedonic benefits onpurchase intentions of counterfeits.

Fig. 1. A model of consumer purchase of


Materialism is another personal factor attached with the acquisitionofmaterial goods (Park & Burns, 2005; Phau,Marishka, &Dix, 2009). Re-lations among purchase of counterfeits andmaterialism are suggested byChuchinprakarn (2003), Furnham and Valgeirsson (2007), Kozar andMarcketti (2011) and Yoo and Lee (2009). However, studies relatingmaterialism with intention of purchasing originals are scarce.Another personal factor considered in this research was public self-consciousness, as consumers would buy brands to construct their imagein social situations (Burnkrant & Page, 1982). The influence of publicself-consciousness on consumer behaviour is observed in the literature(Bushman, 1993; Marquis, 1998; Xu, 2008), but research exploring itsrelations with counterfeiting are scarce and of qualitative nature (Nia &Zaichowsky, 2000).

The study of the relations of brands and counterfeiting are morefrequently explored in literature in order to understand how the spreadof counterfeits would impact the original brand (Commuri, 2009). Con-sidering product related factors, brand attachment is frequently cited asa relevant antecedent of consumer behaviour (Escalas, 2004; Park et al.,2010). Schmalz and Orth (2012) explore how brand attachment wouldimpact unethical behaviour.Mourad andVallete-Florence (2011) proposea theoreticalmodel inwhich brand attachmentwould impact attitudes ofconsumers towards purchasing counterfeits. Penz and Stöttinger (2012)observe that emotional aspects have significant impact on purchasingcounterfeits and originals, indicating the importance of exploring rela-tions among brands and purchase of counterfeits.

Several theoretical and empirical studies on the relations of the self-conceptwith consumer behaviour have been developed in the last years(Kressmann et al., 2006; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy, Grewal, & Mangleburg,2000). Hosany and Martin (2012) observe that empirical studiesabout self-congruence are found in the marketing literature since1968. More recent studies suggest that self-congruence could affectproduct and brand attachment, but none was designed to exploringthe purchase of counterfeits (Kim et al., 2015; Malär et al., 2011;Mugge et al., 2006).

Considering aspects related to the consumer identity, Gistri, Romani,Pace, Gabrielli, and Grappi (2009) point out that counterfeit productslack identity, as they are always evaluated by their “alter ego”: the orig-inals. Producers could argue that efforts to make the fake somehow realwould be ineffective, since the products' “soul” would remain unau-thentic. Gistri et al. (2009) suggest that an individual cannot enhancehis/her identity on faking roots. This is despite the fact that she/hemay attempt to extend her/his self to the members of a social groupby exhibiting fake products (Gistri et al., 2009). On the other hand,Kapferer andMichaut (2014) stress that the core identity of the originalbrand, in the sense of the core values of exclusivity and high quality, isviolated by the faking offspring. This relationship therefore is based

luxury counterfeits versus originals.




mainly on superficial logo effects. Kapferer and Michaut (2014) suggestthat this effect is caused by an overemphasis of the original on increasedaccessibility and conspicuous branding to appeal to ever bigger segmentsof consumers.

The significant relevance of the micro sociological concept ofidentity for Russian consumer luxury brand relationships is confirmedby Kaufmann, Vrontis, and Manakova (2012). Individual factors of theidentity concept are integrated in the hypothesized conceptualization(Fig. 1).

A second study examines whether the impact of two types of self onbrand attachment is moderated by product category involvement, self-esteem and public self-consciousness in a similar way as in developedeconomies (Malär et al., 2011). Investigating if brand attachmentneeds to be differentiated as to emerging markets, this research alsohypothesizes that the effect of brand attachment on purchase intentionsof originals and counterfeits may vary according to how brand attach-ment is measured. Brand attachment can have mixed effects on thepurchase intentions of counterfeits. On the one hand, attachment to aluxury brand in the absence of affordability of originals can lead to greaterwillingness to buy counterfeits (Randhawa et al., 2015). On the otherhand, brand attachment, particularly when emotional bonds are strong,may be also associated with lower intentions to buy counterfeits. This isparticularly the case when originals may be regarded as a single sourceof prestige and gratification.

Raza et al. (2014) explore relationships between brand attachment,low prices, and the attitude towards counterfeits, brand image and pastexperiences on purchasing intentions of mobile phones. According tothis study, past experiences with counterfeits have a strong impact.However, factors related to the past purchases of originals and coun-terfeits are excluded from the study. Self-reported measures of suchbehaviour can be subject to desirability bias and do not represent thefocus of the study.

2.1. Attitudes towards counterfeits: economic benefits and hedonic benefits

A concise summary of the literature on perceived customer valuesis provided by Mathews, Ambroise, and Brignier (2009). This points tothe generic categorizations of utilitarian and hedonic values based ontwo seminal papers (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982, in Mathews et al.,2009) and differentiated perspectives as to brands, products, services,stores or shopping experience. By pursuing utilitarian motives, abuyer applies logical problem solving (Sarkar, 2011) for purchase deci-sions related to more instrumental and functional goods (Dhar &Wertenbroch, 2000).

Purchase decisions for more hedonic products (i.e. designer clothes,sports cars, luxurywatches, etc.) are driven by emotion. Experience, fun,pleasure, and excitement are related motives (Dhar & Wertenbroch,2000; Sarkar, 2011). Expanding on the role of emotions and developingan emotional concept, Hirschman and Stern (1999, p.4) reviewed atripartite set of literature: “These include (1) the cognitive stream, typ-ified by inquiries regarding emotion's role as the affective component ofattitude (e.g., Aaker & Stayman, 1989) or as a precursor to cognitiverestructuring (Isen, 1984); (2) the hedonic consumption stream asexemplified early on by the work of Holbrook and Havlena (Havlena &Holbrook, 1986) and most recently by Celsi, Rose and Leigh (1993)and Arnould and Price (1993); (3) the compulsive/addictive consump-tion stream beginning with early work on impulse purchasing by Rook(1987) and evolving into more general models as exemplified by Faberand O′Guinn (1989), Hirschman (1992) and Rindfleisch, Burroughs andDenton (1997)”.

Hedonic benefits make people think that the experience andcharacteristics of the goods themselves are already valuable requiringless attention to the quality of the products (Babin et al., 1994). A positiveinfluence of the consumers' attitude towards hedonic benefits of counter-feits on their purchase intentions is expected (Yoo & Lee, 2009; Hidayat &Diwasasri, 2013).


Lianto (2015) reports evidence of a positive influence of hedonicbenefits on the purchase intention of counterfeits alignedwith the find-ings of Hidayat and Diwasasri (2013). However, Lianto (2015) arguesthat Triandewi and Tjiptono (2013) find no significant effect of hedonicbenefits on the purchase intention of counterfeits and suggests thatresults could be dependent on product category or culture.

Yoo and Lee (2009) observe that economic values are one of themain antecedents of purchasing counterfeits, since the consumersbelieve that they can have similar benefits from counterfeit goods incomparison to original products. This is confirmed by the results ofDantas, Martins, Garcia, Franco Neto, and Prado (2012) who foundthat status and low prices are the main drivers of purchasing counter-feits.When consumers have high affordability of original luxury brands,economic benefits of counterfeits may not necessarily influence theirintentions to purchase originals (Yoo & Lee, 2009). Hence no theoreticallink between economic benefits of counterfeits and consumption of orig-inals is proposed. The above discussions frame the following hypotheses:

H1. Hedonic Benefits have a positive effect on the purchasing intentionof counterfeit products.

H2. Hedonic Benefits have a positive effect on the purchasing intentionof original products.

H3. Economic Benefits have a positive effect on the purchasing intentionof counterfeit products.

2.2. Materialism

According to Johnson and Attmann (2009), materialism is theattached importance on possession and acquisition of material goods,seeking to achieve life goals and desired comfort conditions (Park &Burns, 2005; Phau et al., 2009). This paper follows the definition byShrum et al. (2013) mainly because it stresses self-related functionsand as it emphasizes the motives of materialistic behaviour. Bothaspects are consistent and integral to the developed initial conceptualiza-tion (Fig. 1). Materialism is regarded as the extent to which individualsattempt to engage in the construction and maintenance of the selfthrough the acquisition and use of products, services, experiences, orrelationships that are perceived to provide desirable symbolic value.

Materialists place “possessions and their acquisition at the center oftheir lives” and view them “as essential to their satisfaction and well-being in life” (Richins & Dawson, 1992, p. 304). Their primary goal ofmaterial possessions is to impress others rather than themselves.From this perspective, both counterfeits and originals fit the purposeof consumers' external physical vanity. This is achieved through prestigeand display effect, despite significant quality differences.

External physical vanity refers to “an excessive concern for, and/or apositive (and perhaps inflated) view of, one's physical appearance”(Netemeyer, Burton, & Lichtenstein, 1995, p. 612). Consumers willhave the identical appearance whether they wear a counterfeit or anoriginal. Consumers of counterfeits need only verisimilitude and there-fore purchase just the prestige of the originals without paying for it(Penz & Stöttinger, 2005).

Yoo and Lee (2009) argue that materialism attracts those consumerswho tend to ignore the negative consequences of counterfeiting. These in-clude threats to the consumers' safety and health, losses for the econo-mies and national societies and damages to the reputation of an originalbrand. When consumers are not aware of these consequences, they aremore likely to purchase counterfeit products, driven by a materialisticdesire.

Triandewi and Tjiptono (2013), Jain and Khanna (2015) as well asChuchinprakarn (2003) state, that materialism has a significant impacton purchase intention of counterfeits. Strehlau, Vils, Pereira, and Polisel(2014) suggest a positive relation between proneness to counterfeitsand materialism in Brazil. Sharma and Chan (2011) find similar results.




Materialism has been also reported to contribute to the intention topurchase counterfeit goods (Swami et al., 2009; Wee, Tan, & Cheok,1995). Thus, the following additional hypotheses are specified:

H4. Materialism has a positive effect on the purchasing intention ofcounterfeit products.

H5. Materialism has a positive effect on the purchasing intention oforiginal products.

2.3. Public self-consciousness

According to Kernis (2003), a good self-image is considered to beone of the strongest psychogenic needs of human beings, because itencourages people to feel good about themselves. Self-image relatesto how see themselves, which is important to good psychologicalhealth. “Self-image includes the influence of the body image on innerpersonality”. At a simple level, people may perceive themselves as agood or bad person, beautiful or ugly. Referring to Rogers, (1959),McLeod (2014) states that “self-image has an effect on how a personthinks, feels and behaves in the world”. According to Malär et al.(2011), the self-verification theory indicates that people are motivatedto validate objects to be consistent with their existing self-concepts. In-dividuals tend to behave in a manner consistent with how they seethemselves. An identical mechanism is relevant for the ideal self,which supports them in their self-enhancement activities by givingthem a feeling of getting closer to their ideal self (Grubb &Grathwohl, 1967, cited in Malär et al., 2011).

In line with Burnkrant and Page (1982), this paper regards publicself-consciousness as a more active variant of the self, compared toself-image. Consumers scoring high on public self-consciousnessdisplay higher levels of sensitivity regarding the kind of image calledfor in specific social situations. These consumers use consumer brandsstrategically to construct this image and to present themselves accord-ingly. Malär et al. (2011) point out the importance of self-image forpublicly self-conscious people. Lee (2009) observes that public self-consciousness is strongly related to both the benefit beliefs and therisk beliefs of purchasing fashion counterfeits, which in turn, influencedcollege students' attitudes regarding purchase counterfeits. Yang (2012)points out indirect effects of public self-consciousness on the intentionsto purchase originals and counterfeits. Given the positive effect of self-image on purchase intentions of originals (Yoo & Lee, 2009), the studyassumes and tests whether public self-consciousness has a positive effecton such intentions.

H6. Public self-consciousness has a positive effect on the purchasingintention of original products.

2.4. Brand attachment and self congruence

Brand attachment is defined as the strength of connection betweenself and the brand. Two critical factors reflect brand attachment proper-ties, namely brand-self connection (the cognitive and emotional connec-tion to the brand (Escalas, 2004) and brand prominence the degree towhich “feelings andmemories about the attachment object are perceivedas top of mind” (Park et al., 2010, p.2). The self-verification theory holdsthat people are motivated to verify, validate and sustain their existingself-concepts (Swann, 2012). Hence, individuals behave in ways consis-tent with how they see themselves or their actual self (Lecky, 1945).

The purchase and consumption of brands congruent with their actualself represent a means of accomplishing this desire for self-expression.Based on the logic of this theory, both the actual self and the aspirationalself (ideal-self) are expected to have a positive impact on the emotionalattachment to brands conveying images and values feeding this selfand personal identity (Kaufmann et al., 2012). Considering this logic


and referring to Malär et al.’s (2011) aforementioned view the followingtwo hypotheses are proposed:

H7. Actual self-congruence has a positive effect on brand attachment.

H8. Ideal self-congruence has a positive effect on brand attachment.

Park et al. (2010) state, that companies increasingly emphasize astrong emotional connection between them and their consumers. Usingqualitative data, Penz and Stöttinger (2012) confirm that emotionalaspects are important drivers of purchasing decisions of counterfeits.However, their results indicate different patterns of positive, negative ormixed emotions as antecedents of purchasing originals and fake products.

Relating to Brazil, Fetscherin, Boulanger, Filho, and Souki (2014)observe that brand love, highly relatedwith brand attachment, has signif-icant relationswithpurchase intention andword ofmouth. This applies tomost of the product categories in their study. Similarly, Olhats, Ceccato,and Gomez (2013) find that brand attachment may create significantintention of buying specific original brands. Accordingly, Borges andTeixeira de Mello (2014) conduct a survey in Brazil that identifies ahigh impact of brand attachment on word of mouth.

The brand association used to construct self-concept and connectionto others (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) can be satisfied through materialownership. Consumers can act dishonestly (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely,2008) and are tempted to regard the behaviour of using a prestigiousbrand without paying a high price as acceptable (Bian & Moutinho,2009). According to Gosline (2009), the counterfeit product actuallyserves as a placebo for brand attachment. Consumers become increas-ingly attached to the real brand even though they never own one. Thispseudo-access to the brand via the counterfeit allows the consumersto form a paradoxal relationship with the original brand. This democra-tizes the exclusivity of the luxury product. Raza et al. (2014) hypothe-size the effect of brand attachment on the purchase intentions ofcounterfeits, but found no significant relation, probably because thestudy was not focused on luxury products. In line with Randhawaet al. (2015) a positive brand self-connection, an integral part of brandattachment, is positively linked to counterfeit purchasing. The followinghypotheses are therefore proposed:

H9. Brand attachment has a positive effect on purchasing intention ofcounterfeits.

H10. Brand attachment has a positive effect on the purchasing intentionof originals.

Yoo and Lee (2009) argue that consumers who prefer legitimateproducts do not desire the counterfeit products being more satisfiedwith the originals. Experiences with original products provide greatersatisfaction due to a better physical quality and interpersonal approvalof the products. These characteristics therefore reduce the interest incounterfeits. This is confirmed by Kapferer and Michaut's (2014) study,stating that consumers who are driven by sustainability motives preferthe original product. Therefore, the following hypothesis is tested:

H11. Purchasing intention of originals negatively affects the purchasingintention of counterfeit products.

Reversely, Yoo and Lee (2009) suggest that the intentions to buycounterfeitsmay be associated positively with intentions to buy originals.As little testing of this relationship has taken place so far in emergingeconomies, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H12. Purchasing intention of counterfeits positively affects thepurchasing intention of originals.

Given the immediacy of actual self to consumer identity and ideal selfbeing shaped by goals, aspirations and imagination (Wylie, 1979), oneexpects that a brand is psychologically closer to actual self-congruence.The ideal self is linked to a more abstract high-level construal (Maläret al., 2011). While advertising campaigns in the west successfully




activate both actual (‘Dove loves your body campaign’) and ideal self(e.g. idealized images of celebrities). In line with Malär et al. (2011), amore concrete construal activated by actual self is hypothesized to bestronger in emotional connection to brands including luxuries. Thefollowing hypothesis provides a testing opportunity in an emergingeconomy context:

H13. Actual self-congruence has a stronger effect on emotional brandattachment than ideal self-congruence.

2.5. Moderating effects

According to the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), peoplecompare themselves using self-guides, like the actual and ideal self. Theabsence of an actual and ideal discrepancy is associated with emotionslike satisfaction, as hopes and wishes were achieved (Higgins, 1987). Onthe contrary, high levels of self-discrepancy may lead to dissatisfactionand depression (Vartanian, 2012).

According toMalär et al. (2011), based on these self-verification pro-cesses, consumerswill feel closer to a brand that ismore congruentwiththeir actual self. Malär et al. argue that a person with low self-esteemwould perceive her/his actual self as more negative. This person is lesslikely to create brand attachment with brands that converge to theiractual self. Therefore, consumers with high scores of self-esteem wouldbe more inclined to develop emotional brand attachment in this case.

In addition, Malär et al. (2011) point out that self-esteem has apositive moderating effect on the relationship between actual self-brandcongruence and brand attachment. Malär et al.’s (2011) postulatedmoderating effects of product involvement, self-esteem and public socialconsciousness are also explored by this study in the emerging economy ofBrazil.

H14a. Product involvement strengthens the relationship between actualself-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

H14b. Product involvement weakens the relationship between idealself-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

H15a. Self-esteem strengthens the relationship between actual self-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

H15b. Self-esteem weakens the relationship between ideal self-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

H16a. Public self-consciousness strengthens the relationship betweenactual self-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

H16b. Public self-consciousness weakens the relationship betweenideal self-congruence and emotional brand attachment.

3. Method

To test the hypotheses, two studies are conducted. In Study1, personaland product-related factors influencing purchasing intentions of originalsand counterfeits are examined using the survey method. Study 2 repli-cates a concise subset of the conceptual model in Study 1 and providestwo alternative measures of brand attachment. The focus of both studiesis luxury fashion brands and corresponding counterfeits.

3.1. Study 1

3.1.1. Selecting the product categoryThe luxury fashion category of designer handbags was selected for

the following motives: first, consumers have a high brand familiarityand recognition. According to Infomoney (2013), 56% of the consumersof the social class targeted in this study bought at least one fake productduring the last year; second, the extent of counterfeitingpractices in this


category is high (Yoo & Lee, 2012); third, functional, emotional, experi-ential and symbolic benefits of this product are well represented.

3.1.2. Data collection procedures and measuresA total of 600 participants completed the questionnaire and the

response rate was 40%. A sample of 532 consumers was eligible foranalysis after the examination of missing data. Respondentsconsisted of middle class (C class) female fashion shoppers fromBelo Horizonte, the third largest city in Brazil. Hemais, Casotti, andRocha (2013) state that consumption for the C class has a meaningof “being part” and participating in the consumer society, and thatthis can bring higher levels of dignity to this population's group. Brazil isstratified into five social classes and the C class represents 60.2% of thepopulation (Brazil Institute of Statistics and Geography, 2014).

A multi-stage systematic proportional sampling method wasemployed in recruiting respondents. In a first stage a proportionalrepresentation of each of the nine administrative regions of BelHorizonte was determined. This was followed by a selection of specificlocations/points of commerce in each region (i.e. supermarkets, salons,fashion outlets), distributed in blocks equidistant of each region. Finally,a systematic selection of respondents in each location took place to fillin each stratum. Each of the 15th customer entering each location wasapproached and they confirmed their residential address in each ob-served region. Six interviewers were trained to collect data and qualitycontrol procedures were in place (time controls, cross-checks of 15% ofquestionnaire by independent market researchers).

The questionnairewas analyzed by eight PhDs inMarketing, in orderto check face validity. All the scales were derived from previous studiesas discussed in the literature review. A pre-test with 30 respondentswas performed ensuring conceptual equivalence between the initialEnglish and the translated questionnaire in Portuguese.

The first question explored the interest of the respondents in buyinga luxury handbag. Respondents with low scores of interest werediscarded. They were also asked to indicate a luxury handbag brandthat they would like to buy. All the answers of the questionnaire wererelated to this specific brand, in order to supply a more objectivecontext. In line with Malär et al. (2011) the unit of analysis for brandattachment and self-congruencewas the individual relationship betweena consumer and the specific indicated brand. Seven global luxury fashionbrands were cited with the top three being Louis Vuitton (38%), Prada(21%) and Chanel (20%).

The sample profile was as follows: 7.3% were less than 20 years old,39.7%were aged 20–29 years; 31.7%were aged 30–39, 21.3% were over40 years old. The distribution based on education was: 6.4% primaryschool, 31.10% secondary school, 18.5% college student, 44% highereducation degree. Most importantly, 61.6% presented a high interestto purchase a luxury handbag.

The questionnaire consisted of items related tomaterialism, perceivedeconomic and hedonic benefits, public self-consciousness, purchase in-volvement, self-esteem and purchase intentions. At last they were askedto answer a set of questions regarding self-congruence, brand attachmentand demographics. The survey's instrument was operationalized throughvalidated scales from previous studies (see Appendix A). The moderatorsare measured as follows. Product involvement is viewed as the degree ofpersonal relevance and importance of the product (Park & Young, 1986).Self-esteem is a person's global evaluation of her/his worth as a humanbeing (Rosenberg, 1979) and reflects the attitude towards the self(Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Self-esteem is measured on Rosenberg's(1965) scale, and six items are retained on the basis of Malär et al.’s(2011) validation in three industries. Public self-consciousness is definedas one's awareness of self as a social object or the awareness that othershave of the self (Feningstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). The four itemsvalidated by Malär et al. (2011) from the seven-item scale proposedby Feningstein et al. (1975) are employed. Brand attachment ismeasuredwith both brand self-connection and prominence (Park et al., 2010).




All constructs are measured on a ten-point scale (1 = stronglydisagree; 10 = strongly agree) which was deemed the most suitableformat to capture full construct variance based on the pilot study.

All the Composite Reliability (CR) statistics were higher than therecommended thresholds (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Nunally, 1978). All AVE(average variance explained) were also over 0.5 (Appendix A). Cronbachalphas ranged between 0.71 and 0.96. All the items presented significantloadings and the AVEs exceeded the squared correlation between thecorresponding construct and the rest of variables in the model indicatingdiscriminant validity. Therefore, convergent and discriminant validity isconfirmed applying the procedures suggested by Fornell and Larcker(1981) and Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips (1991).

3.1.3. Analysis and resultsAfter testing the measurement model's validity, a structural

equation modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted (Hair, Black, Babin,Anderson, & Tatham, 2009; Malhotra, 2001) to test the hypotheses. TheConfirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted using the “Lavaan package”of R software, version 3.0.2 and the structural models were estimated inAmos 22.0. The results are presented in Table 1:

The goodness of fit indices are satisfactory but amarginaly low TLI isnoted. The second order brand attachment model outperformed thefirst order factor model (Δᵡ2 = 460.61; p b .000). The model explainsa substantial share of variance in purchasing intention counterfeitsand a good share in variance of behaviour towards originals and brandattachment. In contrast to Malär et al.’s (2011) findings, but in linewith their theoretical expectations on the individual effects, both actualand ideal self-congruence have a positive effect on brand attachment.Nonetheless the effect of actual self-congruence is not statisticallystronger (H13 not supported).

The role of product involvement and self-esteem as moderatorsof the relationship between two types of self-congruence and brandattachment is tested and reported in Table 2.

The invariant modes that constrained path coefficients to be equalacross moderating conditions generated a worse fit than the variantmodel. The statistical test of differences in path coefficients elicitthat product involvement is not a significant moderator (H14a, H14brejected).

In contrast to Malär et al. (2011), self-esteem reduces the positiveimpact of actual self-congruence on brand attachment (p b .05) andincreases the positive impact of ideal self-congruence on brandattachment (p b .01) (H15a, H14b rejected). Hence, self-esteem repre-sents a significant moderator in the relationship between two types ofself-congruence and brand attachment.

Table 1Results.

Hypotheses Relationship

H1 Hedonic benefits N Purchasing intention of counterfeitsH2 Hedonic benefits N purchasing intention of originalsH3 Economic benefits N purchasing intention of counterfeiH4 Materialism N purchasing intention of counterfeitsH5 Materialism N purchasing intention of originalsH6 Public self-consciousness N purchasing intention of origH7 Actual self-congruence (ASC) N Brand attachmentH8 Ideal self-congruence (ISC) N Brand attachmentH9 Brand attachment N Purchasing intention of counterfeitH10 Brand attachment N Purchasing intention of originalsH11 Purchasing intention of originals N Purchasing intentionH12 Purchasing intention of counterfeits N Purchasing inten

Note: CS = Completely standardized path coefficient.Normed chi-sq. = 3.01; CFI = 0.86; TLI = 0.84; RMSEA = 0.05.R2 purchasing intention counterfeits = 0.59; R2 Originals = 0.30, R2 brand attachment = 0.29⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.


3.2. Study 2

The lack of statistical significance of differences in path coefficientsregarding product involvement as well as the unexpected differencesin the role of self-esteem between the findings in Brazil and those ofMalär et al. (2011) called for a second study. This study evaluateswhether the role of moderators may vary between developed andemerging economies (e.g. Brazil). The second study examines whether:i) the impact of two types of self on brand attachment are moderated byproduct category involvement, self-esteem and public self-consciousnesssimilarly to developed economies (Malär et al., 2011); ii) the effect ofbrand attachment on purchase intentions of originals and counterfeits isdependent on how brand attachment is measured. The luxury fashioncategory of designer handbags and an identical sampling procedurewere selected again for comparability of results with study 1.

3.2.1. Data collection procedures and measuresA total of 276 consumers were eligible for analysis after the exami-

nation of missing data. Respondents consisted of middle class (C class)female fashion shoppers from Belo Horizonte. A multi-stage systematicproportional random sampling method was employed in recruitingrespondents similar to Study 1. The sample profile was as follows:5.4% were less than 20 years old, 34% were aged 20–29 years, 28.9%were aged 30–39, 31.7% were over 40 years old. The distributionbased on education was: 8% primary school, 27.3% secondary school,13.1% college degree, 51.6% higher education degree. Most importantly,67.5% presented a high interest to purchase a luxury handbag.

The scales for actual and ideal self-congruence, purchase intentionsof originals and counterfeits are identical with those in study 1(Appendix B). Additionally, brand attachment was measured withboth self-connection and prominence (see Study 1) as well as withthe six-item emotional brand attachment scale (Thomson et al., 2005).Appendix B describes the measures for Study 2. Following the proce-dure of Little et al. (2002) (cited in Malär et al., 2011) item parcels areused to measure emotional attachment. For each dimension ofattachment indicators created by average values for affection, connectionand passion are used in defining the higher-order construct of emotionalbrand attachment.

All ten-items of emotional brand attachment are internally reliable(alpha=0.90). The EBA has been constructed as an index of three factors(passion, connection and affection) to retain comparability of resultswiththose of Malär et al. (2011). All composite reliability coefficients weresatisfactory (above 0.70). The AVE coefficients were all above 0.50with one exception (0.43) for self-esteem. The comparisons of AVEswith squared correlations of each construct and the remaining constructs

CS Assessment

0.26** Supported−0.29** Supported

ts 0.55** Supported0.11* Supported0.13* Supported

inal products 0.23** Supported0.35** Supported0.22** Supported

s −0.09 Not supported0.31** Supported

of counterfeits −0.09* Supportedtion of originals −0.12* Not supported

.



Table 2Results for hypotheses testing: role of moderators.

ASC → Brand attachment (standardized estimate/CR) ISC → Brand attachment (standardized estimate/CR)

Basic modelsModerated modelsProduct involvement

Low 0.44 (3.53) 0.07 (0.62)⁎ 96.09**High 0.32 (4.08) 0.24 (3.18)

Self-esteemLow 0.53 (5.27) 0.02 (0.17) 131.04**High 0.21 (2.42) 0.39(4.30)

Note: Critical ratios reported in brackets. Moderating groups defined based on median split.⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.


demonstrate discriminant validity. All factor loadings were significant(p b .05). On the basis of the tests constructs can be regarded reliableand with adequate convergent validity.

3.2.2. Analysis and resultsSix of the initial set of hypotheses of the overall model were again

tested in Study 2 (see Table 3). Given the replicability of measures andsampling procedure, this test can be viewed as an evaluation of validitybased on an independent sample. In contrast to Park et al. (2011), allten-items of brand attachmentwere used given the high and significantloadings indicated by CFA.

The model with brand attachment as second-order factoroutperformed the model with first order factor (Δᵡ2 = 165.52;p.000). The consistency of results with those of Park et al. (2011)shows that attachment should be modelled as a second order factorof brand self-connection and prominence in further studies.

Table 4 tests the same subset of six hypotheses based on a differentmeasure of brand attachment which focuses on emotional bonds.

The majority of path estimates are comparable across models. Amajor difference in estimates is noticeable. The effect of attachmenton purchase intentions of counterfeits is negative, as expected. Thisapplies only to emotional attachment, whereas the effect of brand attach-ment on these intentions is positive and similar to study 1. In otherwords,measuring brand attachment through self-connection and prominencesystematically generates a positive sign on future plans to buy counter-feits. Hence the typeofmeasure of consumer attachment to luxury brandscorresponds to differences in results.

Brazilians who score high on self-connection to and brand prom-inence of their favourite fashion luxury brands are more likely topurchase either originals or counterfeits. Yet importantly, when anemotional attachment is high they are more likely to buy originalsand less likely to purchase counterfeits.

While the difference in sign in path coefficient between attachmentand willingness to buy counterfeits across study 1 and 2 may not beattributed to sample composition, more research is warranted. H12 is

Table 3Hypotheses testing: Brand attachment as self-connection and prominence.

Hypotheses CS Assessment

H7 0.26⁎ SupportedH8 0.36⁎⁎ SupportedH9 0.12⁎⁎ SupportedH10 0.19⁎ SupportedH11 −0.91⁎⁎ SupportedH12 −0.90⁎⁎ Not supported

Note: CS = Completely standardized path coefficient.Normed chi-sq. = 2.96; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.08.R2 purchasing intention counterfeits = 0.85; R2 Originals = 0.87, R2 Brand attachment =0.31.⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.


systematically rejected which represents another contrast in findingsbetween Brazil and South Korea and, again, points to differentiatebetween emerging economies. In contrast to Malär et al. (2011),both actual and ideal self-congruence have a statistically comparableeffect on emotional brand attachment (H13 not supported).

The role of product involvement, self-esteem and public self-consciousness as moderators of the relationship between two typesof self-congruence and brand attachment is reported in Table 5.

The moderators did not generate significant differences in pathcoefficients based on chi-square or t tests (inconclusive evidenceregarding H14–H16). Nevertheless, similar to study 1, self-esteemreduces the impact of actual self-congruence on emotional brandattachment and increases the impact of ideal self-congruence.While the tests are insignificant in study 2 (possibly due to lowersample size), the consistency of results for self-esteem with study1, regardless of how attachment is measured, points out that Brazilrequires a localised approach in communicating about counterfeits.The role of self-esteem is different in Brazil fromwhat has been reportedin developed economies such as Switzerland (Malär et al., 2011). The signof moderators for public self-consciousness and product involvement iscompatible with that of Malär et al. (2011).

4. Discussion and implications

Considering how important the counterfeiting is for firms andeconomies, the study contributes to the creation and developmentof new knowledge in order to understand and mitigate these criticalsocietal and economic phenomena.

The literature review suggests that self-esteemwould have a differentmoderation impact in emerging and developed countries. As Brazilianshave higher scores for unhappiness, they are more likely to rely on idealself to achieve their goals and wishes, a view which seems to beconfirmed by the findings. The study entails convincing evidence thatBrazil requires a localised approach in communicating about counterfeits

Table 4Hypotheses testing: Brand attachment as emotional attachment.

Hypotheses CS Assessment

H7 0.22+ SupportedH8 0.36⁎⁎ SupportedH9 −0.20⁎⁎ SupportedH10 0.23⁎ SupportedH11 −0.90⁎⁎ SupportedH12 −0.91⁎⁎ Not supported

Normed chi-sq. = 3.73; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.09.R2 purchasing intention counterfeits = 0.83; R2 Originals = 0.85, R2 Brand attachment=0.32.

+ p b 0.10.⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.



Table 5Results for hypotheses testing: role of moderators.

Models ASC → Emotional brand attachment (std path estimate/CR) ISC → Emotional brand attachment (std path estimate/CR) Δᵡ2

Basic modelsModerated modelsProduct involvement

Low 0.18 (0.93) 0.34 (1.75) 8.22High 0.38 (2.11) −0.05 (−0.27)

Self-esteemLow 0.50⁎ (2.55) 0.17 (.94) 8.29High 0.09 (0.42) 0.43⁎ (2.01)

Public self consciousnessLow 0.09⁎ (0.57) 0.50⁎⁎ (2.99)High 0.50 (1.85) 0.11⁎ (0.41) 7.33

Note: Critical ratios reported in brackets. Moderating groups defined based on median split.⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.


as the role of personal factors is different in Brazil compared to those indeveloped economies.

The proposed theoretical framework (study 1) explains a largevariation in the purchasing intention of originals (30%) and particularlycounterfeits (59%). Findings on this structural model show that, thestronger the purchasing intentions in buying counterfeits, the lower thepurchasing intentions to buy original luxury fashion brands. Regardingthe benefits, the results revealed a relevant impact of economic benefitson the purchasing intention of counterfeits. These results are similarto previous work conducted by Gistri et al. (2009) and Yoo and Lee(2009). The economic issues are very relevant to counterfeit buyers,unlike the consumers of authentic brands.

Regarding the hedonic benefits, study 1 explains that they influenceboth the intentions to purchase counterfeit products and the intentionsto purchase original products. However, they present a stronger influ-ence on the counterfeits' consumers. Both original and fake brands canpromote hedonic benefits. Both can be used as the symbols of a socialgroup, which can respond to the use of these products with “positive”reactions (as they could not be able to differentiate fakes from originals).However, the Brazilian consumer of luxury counterfeits strongly seeks a“social hedonic”pleasure, using the fake brand to promote herself/himselfmore intensely than the buyers of the originals.

Similarly, “materialism” has a modest but significant impact onthe intention of purchasing either original or counterfeit products.Consumers of original goods are much more materialistic than the con-sumers of counterfeits. Buyers of original products usually think that thepossession of very expensive and luxury original products is very impor-tant. The real material ownership of the product is sought, not justexhibiting the brand. These findings confirm Kapferer and Michaut's(2014) views pointing to refocus on core values such as high qualityand exclusivity.

Concerning the impact of economic benefits on the purchasingintentions of counterfeits, a stronger influence of the economic benefitsis possible in Brazil compared to South Korea (Yoo & Lee, 2009). Notethat Brazil has lower average incomes than South Korea, a fact thatmay have had a bearing on these results.

Materialism (personality trait) has a comparable effect on behaviourin both samples: for Koreans and Brazilians, consumers of original prod-ucts are more materialistic than consumers of counterfeit products.Similar findings were found in a study conducted in India with the con-sumers of luxury products (Srinivasan, Srivastava, & Sandeep, 2014).

Public self-consciousness impacts positively on the intention ofpurchasing originals (study 1). Interestingly, a separate analysis high-lights no significant impact of this variable on the purchasing intentionof counterfeits. These findings suggest that buyers of counterfeits, whoknow that the product is not original, are not proud to own it. Buyersof counterfeits have significant hedonic benefits resultant from theexhibition of products to social groups. Owners of originals experience a


reinforcement of self-image, as they know that they were able to acquirethe ownership of an original product.

The hypothetical framework test also reveals that the brand attach-ment has a positive influence on the purchasing intentions of originalsand a negative impact on the purchasing intentions of counterfeits(study 2). Emotional attachment tends to be fulfilled by originals ratherthan counterfeits, with one exception (model 1, study 2). Concerningthe counterfeit buyer, the study shows that this type of consumerhas lower levels of attachment to the brand. In other words, if theseconsumers were attached to a brand, they would buy less counterfeits,and vice versa.

To summarize, buyers of counterfeits are looking for hedonic benefitsoriginated from the social group. They are not attached to the brand anddo not have their public self-consciousness enhancedwith the ownershipof a fake product. For them, the brand acts more like an instrument toderive pleasure in front of others.

This research also explores the impacts of actual self-congruenceand ideal self-congruence on brand attachment, as suggested by Maläret al. (2011). Aforementioned findings showed significant impacts ofboth constructs. This is in terms of brand attachment supporting thetheoretical expectations but not necessarily the empirical findings ofMalär et al.’s (2011) study. The results of this work contribute to theextant literature, as most of the previous studies that explored relationsbetween self-congruence and brands were not developed in the hedonicluxury markets (Hapsari & Adiwijaya, 2014).

Study 2 provides evidence of the impact of actual self-congruenceand ideal self-congruence on brand attachment to luxury brands. This isin the context of understanding purchasing behaviour towards counter-feits in emerging economies. The importance of actual self-congruenceand ideal self-congruence on brand attachment varies slightly across thetwo studies. The effect of ideal self on attachment is significant and posi-tive in both studies, regardless of how attachment is measured contrast-ing Malär et al.’s (2011) findings. The effect of actual self, however,seems to vary according to howattachment is conceptualized. The impactof perceived actual self-congruence and ideal self-congruence on emo-tional brand attachment is positive and significant (Table 5). This findingis consistent in both studies. While the findings are aligned with theoret-ical expectations of Malär et al. (2011), they provided full support for therole of both actual and ideal self-congruence on attachment.

The ideal self may create attachment to luxury brands throughaspirational and compensatory mechanisms. Schmitt and Allik (2005)measured self-esteem in 53 countries, and concluded that self-esteem ofthe Brazilian population is greater than self-esteem of Swiss people.However, based on the 2015 World Happiness Report, Switzerland isranked first and Brazil 16th. These results are similar to the OECD BetterLife Index (OECD, 2015).

The effect of brand attachment on purchase intentions of counterfeitsvaries according to how brand attachment is measured. Yet, brand



Factorloadings

Economic benefits of counterfeits (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.62I buy counterfeit products if I think original designer products aretoo expensive.

0.85

I buy counterfeit products if I cannot afford to buy designer products. 0.85I buy counterfeit products without hesitation if I have a chance tobuy the counterfeits.

0.84

I buy counterfeit products, instead of the designer products, if Iprefer specific brands.

0.85

I boast about counterfeit products as if they are the original brandproducts.

0.66

I usually purchase counterfeits when it is difficult to distinguishbetween the counterfeits and the original products.

0.63

Hedonic benefits of counterfeits (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.84; AVE = 0.63I buy counterfeit products because counterfeiters are “little guys”who fight big business.

0.81

Buying counterfeit products demonstrates that I am a wise shopper. 0.85I like buying counterfeit products because it is like playing a practicaljoke on the manufacturer of the non-counterfeit.

0.86

I would buy counterfeit products even if I could easily afford to buynon-counterfeit products

0.64

Materialism (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.77; AVE = 0.50I like a lot luxury in my life 0.56I put less emphasis on material thing than most people I know 0.63I have all the things I really need to enjoy life*. −0.69My life would be better if I owned certain things I do not have. 0.77I wouldn't be happy if I would not have interesting thingsI would not be any happier if I owned nicer things.* −0.65

Appendix A. Study 1: Construct measurement and validity


attachment has a systematic positive effect on intentions to purchaseoriginals. The effect of attachment on intentions to purchase counterfeitstends to be negative in study 1 and study 2 (when measured as emo-tional attachment). In Study 2, when attachment is measured throughbrand self-connection and prominence, the impact on counterfeit pur-chase intentions is moderately positive. The results are in sharp contrastwith those of Raza et al. (2014)who report no significant effect of attach-ment on purchase intentions of counterfeits. These mixed findings sug-gest the need for further research on the specificity of emergingeconomies.

4.1. Managerial Implications

Significant managerial implications emerge from this study. One ofthem is the opportunity for CMOs to increase emotional brand attach-ment in order to reduce the counterfeit purchases in emerging econo-mies. Previous research as accomplished by Gosline (2009) indicatedthat brand attachmentmay reduce purchase intention of counterfeitingand increase purchase intention of originals, but the results are limitedby sample size. Raza et al. (2014) aims to verify these hypotheses, butnot in the luxury markets. This is the first quantitative study that exam-ines the relations of brand attachment and brand self-congruence inemerging markets. Results show that consumers that buy counterfeitsassociate perceived hedonic and economic benefits, and that they feelpleasure using fakes. CMOs need to consider that consumers of counter-feits want to use and show their brands, but have low emotional connec-tions. Hence, creating marketing programs to develop brand attachmentis one important keystone to reduce counterfeiting of luxury products.These strategies should reinforce the exclusive role of original brands toprovide prestige and gratification.

Communication strategies of original luxury brands should reinforcetheir credentials by emphasizing the image conveyed by owning anexclusive and high quality original. This communication will magnifythe risk of owning counterfeits for personal image, reputation andpride. Corresponding strategies could be directed to brand communitiesusing increasingly social media channels. This approach will developand nurture attachment to a specific brand. Idealized images maybe used successfully to promote luxury brands in Brazil but suchimages may cautiously be presented in order to make sure standardsare perceived as attainable.

Marketing strategies planned for emerging countries could also bedriven by enhanced awareness of the potentially detrimental effects ofcounterfeits on the luxury brand's market share. By departing fromresults reported in Switzerland by Malär et al. (2011), this study offersevidence of the need to tailor marketing strategies to idiosyncraticconditions of emerging economies to promote originals and deter con-sumers frombuying counterfeits. Due to the high importance of economicbenefits for counterfeit purchasers, brand manufacturers might considerto provide increasingly economic benefits to consumers. Furthermore,disruptive innovation and blue ocean strategy might be promisingstrategic avenues to follow. Eliminating all unnecessary and costlygadgets, brand affordability is increasedwhilst simultaneously focusingon differentiation.

To address the salient importance of ideal self-congruence, the brandowners should research the respective real life situations of brand buyers.By researching associated consumer values, products can be promoted ina visualized and visionary way. This suggestion is also in line with thefinding that brand ownership reinforces the self-image pointing to thepursuit of ideal value congruence. In brand leadership terms, the brandshould strive for authenticity. This should be the brand's corporate socialresponsibility strategy, credibly contributing to the actual achievement ofthis desired social end state. This attitude should also be reflected in thebehaviour and communication of employees in customer contact (i.e. be-havioural branding). Asmaterialisticmotives proved significant for brandowners, these values should include exclusivity, quality, prestige andpride can be the subject of future research. This approach might also


trigger enhanced brand attachment. In terms of localized marketing mixstrategies and tactics, more emotional/experiential marketing is recom-mended, i.e. emphasizing event marketing to facilitate social experience,or exclusive retail channels.

Considering how important the counterfeiting is for firms andeconomies, this is a relevant field of study, which can be useful forthe creation and development of theoretical and empirical backgroundsthrough empirical studies, in order to understand andmitigate these crit-ical societal phenomena. In this sense, this research innovatively arguesthat consumer-brand relationship concepts (as brand attachment andself-congruence) have a key role in shaping anti-counterfeiting strategies.

4.2. Limitations and avenues for further research

Given the interesting results regarding the role of public self-consciousness and facets of brand attachment, new research questionsand hypotheses on how consumer-brand relationships can affectcounterfeiting should be proposed and explored in future studies. Inparticular, differentiating brand attachment levels and their implica-tions on the intentions to buy counterfeits could further differentiatebetween high context and low context cultures, both in establishedand developing economies.

The brand respondents selectedwere corporate, as opposed to specificproduct brands. Future researchmay examinewhether the level of brandhas an impact on the emotional attachment. Some goodness of fit indicesin this researchwere slightly below thresholds. Given the large number ofvariables and items in this research, future studies can employ larger sam-ples to further test the proposed model. Finally, one discriminant test be-tween ideal and actual self-congruence is marginally under thresholds.While this is not a major drawback, future studies using larger samplesmay correct this issue. An additional research avenuewould be the explo-ration of the proposed conceptual model in other emerging economies.Thiswould be valuable given the extent of counterfeiting in thesemarketsand the importance of emerging economies to the world economy.



(continued)

Factorloadings

It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I cannot afford to buy all thethings I would like

0.61

I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes 0.64Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiringmaterial possessions

I do not place much emphasis on the amount of material objectspeople own as a sign of success*

−0.54

The things I own say a lot about how well I am doing in life. 0.73I like to own things that impress people. 0.51I do not pay much attention to the material objects other people own.* −0.68I usually buy only the things I need.* −0.65I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned.* −0.65I enjoy spending money on things that are not practical. 0.68I would be happier if I could afford to buy more things. 0.63Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure. 0.61

Actual self congruence (Sirgy et al., 1997 in Malär et al., 2011): CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.82The personality of brand ________________ is consistent with how Isee myself (my actual self).

0.87

The personality of brand ________________ is a mirror image of me(my actual self).

0.93

Ideal self congruence (Sirgy et al., 1997 in Malär et al., 2011): CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.85The personality of brand ________________ is consistent with how Iwould like to be (my ideal self).

0.92

The personality of brand ________________ is a mirror image of theperson I would like to be (my ideal self).

0.92

Brand attachment (Park et al., 2010): CR = 0.96; AVE = 0.74Brand self-connectionTo what extent is (brandname) part of you and who you are? 0.81To what extent do you fell personally connected tobrandname?_______________

0.87

To what extent do you feel emotionally bonded tobrandname?_______________

0.89

To what extent is (brand name) part of you? 0.89To what extent does (brand name) say something to other peopleabout who you are?

0.79

ProminenceTo what extent are your thoughts and feelings toward (brand name)often automatic, coming to mind seemingly on their own?

0.87

To what extent do your thoughts and feelings toward (brand name)come to your mind naturally and instantly?

0.87

To what extent do your thoughts and feelings toward (brand name)come to mind so naturally and instantly that you don't have muchcontrol over them?

0.87

To what extent does the word (brand name) automatically evokemany good thoughts about the past, present, and future?

0.83

To what extent do you have many thoughts about (brand name)? 0.83

Intention to buy counterfeits (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.70I have the intention on purchasing counterfeits bags in the future. 0.86If I would purchase a bag now, I would buy one counterfeited. 0.91I intend to purchase counterfeits bags when I need this product. 0.90Purchasing a counterfeit bag is my first choice. 0.83

Intention to buy Originals (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.72; AVE = 0.56I intend to purchase original bags in the future. 0.69If I would purchase a bag now, I would buy one original. 0.63I intend to purchase original bags when I need this product. 0.80Purchasing original bags is my first choice. 0.79

Public self-consciousness (Feningstein et al., 1975): CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.56I am concerned about the way I present myself. 0.80I usually worry about making a good impression. 0.82One of the last things I do before I leavemy room is to look in themirror. 0.66I am usually aware of my appearance. 0.74

Product involvement (Adapted from Malär et al., 2011)This product category of handbags is very important to me.

Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965): CR = 0.75; AVE = 0.53On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 0.78I feel that I am a person of worth. 0.72All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure.* −0.67I take a positive attitude towards myself. 0.77

Note: * reversed items.

Appendix A (continued) Appendix B. Study 2: Construct measurement and validity

Factor Loadings

Actual Self Congruence (Sirgy et al., 1997 inMalär et al., 2011): CR= 0.90; AVE= 0.82The personality of brand __________ is consistent with how I seemyself (my actual self).

0.87

The personality of brand _________ is a mirror image of me (myactual self).

0.93

Ideal Self Congruence (Sirgy et al., 1997 in Malär et al., 2011): CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.85The personality of brand _________ is consistent with how Iwould like to be (my ideal self).

0.92

The personality of brand _________is a mirror image of theperson I would like to be (my ideal self).

0.92

Brand Attachment (Park et al., 2010)Brand self-connection: CR = 0.85; AVE = 0.53To what extent is (brandname) part of you and who you are? 0.81To what extent do you fell personally connected tobrandname?_______________

0.87

To what extent do you feel emotionally bonded tobrandname?_______________

0.89

To what extent is (brand name) part of you? 0.89To what extent does (brand name) say something to otherpeople about who you are?

0.79

Brand attachment (Park et al., 2010)Prominence: CR = 0.84; AVE = 0.51To what extent are your thoughts and feelings toward (brandname) often automatic, coming tomind seemingly on their own?

0.87

To what extent do your thoughts and feelings toward (brandname) come to your mind naturally and instantly?

0.87

To what extent do your thoughts and feelings toward (brandname) come to mind so naturally and instantly that you don'thave much control over them?

0.87

To what extent does the word (brand name) automatically evokemany good thoughts about the past, present, and future?

0.83

To what extent do you have many thoughts about (brand name)? 0.83

Intention to buy counterfeits (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.70I have the intention on purchasing counterfeits bags in the future. 0.96If I would purchase a bag now, I would buy one counterfeited. 0.95I intend to purchase counterfeits bags when I need this product. 0.94Purchasing a counterfeit bag is my first choice. 0.86

Intention to buy Originals (Yoo & Lee, 2009): CR = 0.93; AVE = 0.70I intend to purchase original bags in the future. 0.67If I would purchase a bag now, I would buy one original. 0.87I intend to purchase original bags when I need this product. 0.80Purchasing original bags is my first choice. 0.82

Public self-consciousness (Feningstein et al., 1975): CR = 0.85; AVE = 0.59I am concerned about the way I present myself. 0.78I usually worry about making a good impression. 0.82One of the last things I do before I leave my room is to look in themirror.

0.67

I am usually aware of my appearance. 0.78

Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965): CR = 0.76; AVE = 0.43On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 0.56I feel that I am a person of worth. 0.52All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure.* 0.69I take a positive attitude toward myself. 0.72

Product involvement (Van Trijp, Hoyer, & Inman, 1996; Malär et al., 2011) CR = 0.85;AVE = 0.59

Because of my personal attitudes, I feel that this is a product thatought to be important to me.

0.87

Because of my personal values, I feel that this is a product thatought to be important to me.

0.85

This product is very important to me personally. 0.88Compared with other products, this product is important to me. 0.65I am interested in this product. 0.69

Emotional brand attachment (Thomson et al., 2005 and Park et al., 2010) CR = 0.81;AVE = 0.58

Affection 0.89My feelings towards the brand can be characterized by:AffectionLoveConnection 0.71

(continued on next page)


Please cite this article as: Kaufmann, H.R., et al., Identifyingmoderators of brand attachment for driving customer purchase intention of original vscounterfeits of luxury brands, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.003


(continued)

Factor Loadings

My feelings towards the brand can be characterized by:ConnectionPassion 0.91My feelings towards the brand can be characterized by:PassionDelightCaptivation

Appendix B (continued)


References

Ahna, T., Ekincib, Y., & Lid, G. (2013). Self-congruence, functional congruence, anddestinationchoice. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 719–723.

Ahtola, O. T. (1985). Hedonic and utilitarian aspects of consumer behavior: an attitudinalperspective. In E. C. Hirschman, & M. B. Holbro (Eds.), NA — Advances in consumerresearch (pp. 7–10). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic Shopping Motivations. Journal of Retailing,79(2), 77–95.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic andutilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.

Bacha, M. L., Strehlau, S., & Strehlau, V. (2013). Proposta de segmentação de usuárias debolsas de luxo falsificadas. PMKTCiencia, 1(1) (43-37).

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structuring equation models. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 16(Spring), 74–94.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct reliability in organizationalresearch. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.

Bain e Company (2013). http://www.bain.com/ (Accessed 28.12. 2013)Bamossy,G., & Scammon,D. L. (1985). Product counterfeiting: Consumers andmanufacturers

beware. In E. C. Hirschman, & M. B. Holbro (Eds.), NA — advances in consumer research(pp. 334–339). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumerattitudes.Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.

Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchaseconsiderations. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368–378.

Borges, G. R., & Teixeira de Mello, S. R. (2014). A influencia do apego na recomendaçãode uma IES na ótica dos alunos de uma Universidade Pública Federal no Brasil.Paper presented at XIV Coloquio Internacional de Gestão Universitária—CIGU: AGestão do Conhecimento e os Novos Modelos de Universidade. Florianoplois: UFSC.

Bosworth, D. (2006). Counterfeiting and piracy: The state of the art. Oxford: IntellectualProperty Research Centre.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Hove and New York:Brunner-Routledge.

Brazil Institute of Statistics and Geography (2014). Centro de Politicas Sociais da FundaçãoGetúlio Vargas (2014). Panorama de Evolução da Renda e Classes Econômicas (http://www.cps.fgv.br/ibrecps/credi3/TEXTO_panorama_evolucao.htm).

Burnkrant, R. E., & Page, T. J. (1982). On the management of self-images in social situations:The role of public self-consciousness. Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1), 452–455.

Bushman, B. J. (1993).What's in a name? Themoderating role of public self-consciousness onthe relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(5), 857–861.

Cademan, A., Henriksson, R., & Nyqvist, V. (2012). The effect of counterfeit products on luxurybrands— An empirical investigation from the consumer perspective. Kalmar: Linnaeus Uni-versity. Thesis (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:530386/fulltext01.pdf).

Chakraborty, G., Allred, A. T., & Bristol, T. (1996). Exploring consumers' evaluations ofcounterfeits: The roles of country of origin and ethnocentrism. In K. P. Corfman, & J. G.LynchJr. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 379–384). Provo, Utah: Associationfor Consumer Research.

Chiu, H. C., Hsieh, Y. C., Chang, S. H., & Lee, W. R. (2009). Exploring the effects of anti-counterfeiting strategies on customer values and loyalty. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5),403–413 (SSCI).

Chuchinprakarn, S. (2003). Consumption of counterfeit goods in Thailand: Who are thepatrons? European Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 48–53.

Commuri, S. (2009). The impact of counterfeiting on original-item consumers' brandrelationships. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 86–98.

Cordell, V., Wongtada, N., & Kieschnick, R. L., Jr. (1996). Counterfeit purchase intentions:Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of BusinessResearch, 35, 41–53.

Dantas, S. S., Martins, B. S., Garcia, J. N., Franco Neto, M. A. A., & Prado, K. P. L. A. (2012).A alta e baixa renda consumindo produtos falsificados: uma questão de auto-imagem?Paper presented at XV SEMEAD - Seminários em Administração. São Paulo: FEA-USP.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitariangoods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(February), 60–71.

Dodge, H. R., Edwards, E. A., & Fullerton, S. (1996). ***Consumer transgressions in themarketplace: Consumers' perspectives. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 821–835.

Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Guler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit purchase: A review andpreview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12(6), 1–26.

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 168–179.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal reference groups and brand meaning.Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 378–389.

Europol (2015). Counterfeit goods produced in the EU on the rise. https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/counterfeit-goods-produced-eu-rise/ (Accessed 3.12.2015)


Feningstein, A., Scheier, F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527.

Fetscherin,M., Boulanger, M., Filho, C. G., & Souki, G. Q. (2014). The effect of product categoryon consumer brand relationships. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 23(2),78–89.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction totheory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservablevariables andmeasurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Franses, P. H. B. F., & Lede, M. (2015). Cultural norms and values and purchases of counter-feits. Applied Economics, 47(52/54), 5902–5916.

Furnham, A., & Valgeirsson, H. (2007). The effect of life values and materialism on buyingcounterfeit products. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(5), 677–685.

Gambim, J. G., & Nogani, V. K. C. (2013). Ostentação com imitação? O comportamento doconsumidor na compra de bolsas de marcas de luxo falsificadas. Paper presented at öCLAV: Retail and development in emerging markets, São Paulo (http://www.academia.edu/7336743/).

Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., & Schultz, C. J., II (2006). The effects of counterfeiting onconsumer search. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 245–256.

Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V., & Grappi, S. (2009). Consumption practices ofcounterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5/6),364–374.

Givon, M., Mahajan, V., & Muller, E. (1995). Software piracy: Estimation of lost sales andthe impact on software diffusion. Journal of Marketing, 59, 29–37.

Gosline, R. A. R. (2009). The real value of fakes: Dynamic symbolic boundaries in sociallyembedded consumption. Cambridge: DBA Dissertation, Harvard Business School(http://gradworks.umi.com/33/71/3371273.html).

Hair, J. R., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análisemultivariada de dados. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Hapsari, L., & Adiwijaya, M. (2014). The relationship between self-congruity, brand relation-ship quality, and brand loyalty. Asian Journal of Business Research, 4(2), 28–39.

Harvey, P. J., & Walls, W. D. (2003). Laboratory markets in counterfeit goods: Hong Kongversus Las Vegas. Applied Economics Letters, 10(14), 883–887.

Havocscope (2016). Global Black Market Information, Counterfeit losses by country. re-trieved from http://www.havocscope.com/losses-to-counterfeit-goods-by-country/on 10th March 2016.

Hemais,W. H., Casotti, L. M., & Rocha, E. V. P. (2013). Hedonismo emoralismo: consumo nabase da pirâmide. Revista de Administração de Empresas –RAE, 53(2), 199–207.

Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., ... Oh, H.(2013). Consumer value perception of luxury goods: A cross-cultural and cross-industry comparison. Psychology and Marketing, 29(12), 1018–1034.

Hidayat, A., & Diwasasri, A. H. (2013). Factors influencing attitudes and intention to purchasecounterfeit luxury brands among Indonesian consumers. International Journal ofMarketing Studies, 5(4), 143–151.

Hieke, S. (2010). Effects of counterfeits on the image of luxury brands: An empirical studyfrom the customer perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 159–173.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. PsychologicalReview, 94(3), 319–340.

Hirschman, E. C., & Stern, B. B. (1999). The roles of emotion in consumer research. In E. J.Arnould, & L. M. Scott (Eds.), NA — Advances in consumer research (26) (pp. 4–11).Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Holmes, J. G. (2000). Social relationships: The nature and function of relational schemas.European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 447–495.

Hosany, S., & Martin, D. (2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. Journal ofBusiness Research, 65(5), 685–691.

Infomoney (2013). http://www.infomoney.com.br/minhas-financ5as/consumo/noticia/2922463/classe-consome-mais-produto-pirata-que-classe-media/ (Accessed 29.04.2015)

Jain, D., & Khanna, M. (2015). An empirical study on the consumer intention to purchaseoriginal vs. counterfeit products among Delhi consumers. International Journal ofEngineering, Business and Enterprise Applications, 15(275), 179–186.

Jenner, T., & Artun, E. (2005). Determinanten des Erwerbs gefälschter Markenprodukte –Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. Der Markt, 44(3/4), 142–150.

Johnson, T., & Attmann, J. (2009). Compulsive buying in a product specific context: Clothing.Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13(3), 394.

Kapferer, J., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketingupside down. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), 311–322.

Kapferer, J. -N., & Michaut, A. (2014). Luxury counterfeit purchasing: The collateral effectof luxury brands' trading down policy. Journal of Brand Strategy, 3(1), 59–70.

Kaufmann, H. R., Vrontis, D., & Manakova, Y. (2012). Perceptions of luxury: IdiosyncraticRussian consumer culture and identity. European Journal Cross Cultural Competenceand Management, 2(3/4), 209–235.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. PsychologicalInquiry, 1, 1–26.

Kim, J. E., Cho, H. J., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2009). Influence of moral affect, judgment, andintensity on decision making concerning counterfeit, gray-market, and imitationproducts. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(3), 211–226.

Kim, S., Lim, C. M., Baek, T. H., & Kim, Y. (2015). The impact of image congruence on brandattachment and loyalty: the moderating role of product type. The Journal of Advertisingand Promotion Research, 4(1), 43–76.

Kozar, J. M., & Marcketti, S. B. (2011). Examining ethics and materialism with purchase ofcounterfeits. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 393–404.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. J. (2006). Direct andindirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research,59(9), 955–964.

Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(16)30288-0/rf0005















http://www.bain.com/
















http://www.cps.fgv.br/ibrecps/credi3/TEXTO_panorama_evolucao.htm

http://www.cps.fgv.br/ibrecps/credi3/TEXTO_panorama_evolucao.htm






http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:530386/fulltext01.pdf



























https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/counterfeit-goods-produced-eu-rise/

https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/counterfeit-goods-produced-eu-rise/














http://www.academia.edu/7336743/

http://www.academia.edu/7336743/








http://gradworks.umi.com/33/71/3371273.html







http://www.havocscope.com/losses-to-counterfeit-goods-by-country/



















http://www.infomoney.com.br/minhas-financ5as/consumo/noticia/2922463/classe-consome-mais-produto-pirata-que-classe-media/

http://www.infomoney.com.br/minhas-financ5as/consumo/noticia/2922463/classe-consome-mais-produto-pirata-que-classe-media/































Lee, J. (2009). Understanding college students' purchase behavior of fashion counterfeits:fashion consciousness, public self-consciousness, ethical obligation, ethical judgment,and the theory of planned behavior. Athens: Ohio University, Master's thesis (https://etd.ohiolink.edu/).

Leisen, B., & Nill, A. (2001). Combating product counterfeiting: An investigation into the likelyeffectiveness of a demand-oriented approach. American Marketing Association ConferenceProceedings — Winter Educators' Conference: Marketing theory and applications, Chicago.Chicago: AMA, 271–277.

Lianto, V. T. (2015). The impact of past behaviour, attitude towards counterfeit, self-characteristic, and purchase intention of original crocs towards consumer purchaseintention of counterfeit crocs. iBuss Management, 3(2), 119–130.

Malär, M., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. T., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachmentand brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal ofMarketing, 75(7), 35–52.

Malhotra, N. K. (2001). Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada (3 ed.). PortoAlegre: Bookman.

Manser, A. (2013). Cross-cultural counterfeits. Udaily-The University of Delaware (http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2015/may/counterfeit-luxury-goods-051815.html/ Accessed5.12.2015).

Marquis, M. (1998). Self-consciousness disposition sheds light on consumers' reactions towaiting. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 544–550.

Mathews, C., Ambroise, L., & Brignier, J. -M. (2009). Hedonic and symbolic consumptionperceived values: Opportunities for innovators and designers in the fields of brand andproduct design. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Renaissance & Renewal in ManagementStudies (32 pp.).

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.

McLeod, S. A. (2014). Carl Rogers. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html on 20 June 2016.

Misbah, K., & Rahman, S. (2015). Word of mouth, perceived risk and emotions explainingconsumers' counterfeit products purchase intention: Implications for local andinternational original brands in a developing country. Advances in Business-RelatedScientific Research Journal, 6(2), 145–160.

Modesto, N. (2007). Luxo: um mercado de desejos, carreira e sucesso. Jornal Carreira &Sucesso, 26.

Mourad, S., & Vallete-Florence, V. P. (2011). The effects of counterfeit on luxury brandbuying behavior, in terms of consumption experience. Sciences d'Homme et de la Société(http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00660417/ Accessed 20.03.2014).

Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N., & Schoormans, J. P. (2006). Product attachment and productlifetime: The role of personality congruity and fashion. European Advances in ConsumerResearch, 7(1), 460–466.

Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1995). Trait aspects of vanity: Measure-ment and relevance to consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March),612–626.

Nia, A., & Zaichowsky, J. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands?The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497.

Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.OECD (2007). The economic impact of counterfeiting piracy. Paris: OECD Publishing (http://

www.oecd.org/sti/38707619.pdf).OECD (2015). How's life? 2015: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing (http://dx.

doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2015-en).Olhats, M., Ceccato, P., & Gomez, L. S. R. (2013). Emotional branding for slum handicrafts.

Iara – Revista de Moda, Cultura e Arte, 6(1), 5–26.Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: the

impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journalof Marketing Research, 23(11), 11–35.

Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand at-tachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation oftwo critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.

Park, H. J., & Burns, L. D. (2005). Fashion orientation, credit card use, and compulsive buying.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 135–141.

Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2005). Forget the ‘real’ thing — Take the copy! An explanatorymodel for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 32/1, 68–575.

Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2012). A comparison of the emotional and motivational aspectsin the purchase of luxury products versus counterfeits. Journal of Brand Management,19(7), 581–594.

Phau, I., Marishka, S., & Dix, S. (2009). Consumers' willingness to knowinglypurchase counterfeit products. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(4),262–281.

Poddar, A., Foreman, J., Banerjee, S., & Ellen, P. S. (2012). Exploring the Robin Hood effect:Moral profiteering motives for purchasing counterfeit products. Journal of BusinessResearch, 65, 1500–1506.

Prendergast, G., Chuen, L. H., & Phau, I. (2002). Understanding consumer demandfor non-deceptive pirated brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20(7),405–416.

Provedel, L. (2009). World services group. Anti counterfeiting in Latin America— A Brazilianperspective. http://www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=3875/ (Accessed 2.12.2015)

Qian, Y. (2008). Impacts of entry by counterfeits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4),1577–1609, in: Kapferer, J-N. & Michaut, A. 2014. Luxury counterfeit purchasing: Thecollateral effect of luxury brands' trading down policy. Journal of Brand Strategy, 3(1),59–70.

Randhawa, P., Calantone, R., & Vorhees, C. M. (2015). The pursuit of counterfeited luxury:An examination of the negative side effects of close consumer–brand connections.Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2395–2403.


Raza, M., Ahad, M., Shafqat, M., Aurangzaib, M., & Rizwan, M. (2014). The determinants ofpurchase intention towards counterfeit mobile phones in Pakistan. Journal of PublicAdministration and Governance, 4(3), 1–19.

Richins, M., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and itsmeasurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,19(3), 303–316.

Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions.Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 504–521.

Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships asdeveloped in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study ofa science. Formulations of the person and the social context, Vol. 3, . New York: McGrawHill (http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html/ Accessed 5.12.2015).

Rosenberg, M. (1965). The measurement of self-esteem: Society and the adolescent self-image.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.Salnik, V. (2011). Brands and counterfeit goods: The mythical standoff. Pravda (http://www.

pravdareport.com/business/companies/05-09-2011/118952-brands-0/ Accessed 3.12.2015).

Sarkar, A. (2011). Impact of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values on individual'sperceived benefits and risks in online shopping. International Management Review,7(1), 58–65.

Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response tounethical firm behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 29(11), 869–884.

Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteemscale in 53 nations: exploring the universal and culture-specific features of globalself-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642.

Sharma, P., & Chan, R. Y. K. (2011). Counterfeit proneness: conceptualisation and scaledevelopment. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5–6), 602–626.

Sheth, J. N. (2011). Impact of emerging markets on marketing: Rethinking existingperspectives and practices. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 166–182.

Shrum, L. J., Wong, N., Arif, F., Chugani, S. K., Gunz, A., Lowrey, T. M., ... Sundie, J. (2013).Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal pursuits: Functions, processes, andconsequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1179–1185.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. F. (2000). Retail environment, self-congruity andretail patronage: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of BusinessResearch, 49(2), 127–138.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9(3), 287–300.

Srinivasan, R., Srivastava, R. K., & Sandeep, B. (2014). Impact of age on purchase behaviorof luxury brands. Journal of Research in Business and Management, 2(9), 19–32.

Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: A literaturereview. European Journal of Marketing, 320–349 (43/3/4).

Strehlau, S., Vils, L., Pereira, C. R., & Polisel, R. (2014). Prontidão ao consumo de marcasfalsificadas. Revista de administração da Unimep, 12, 182.

Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Fake it: Personality and individualdifference predictors of willingness to buy counterfeit goods. The Journal ofSocio-Economics, 38(5), 820–825.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T.Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23–42). London: Sage.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions ofglobal self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment,65(2), 322–342.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind:measuring the strengthof consumers' attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

Triandewi, E., & Tjiptono, F. (2013). Consumer intention to buy original brands versuscounterfeits. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(2), 23–32.

Van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch? Product category-levelexplanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3),281–292.

Vartanian, L. R. (2012). Self-discrepancy theory and body image. In T. Cash (Ed.), Encyclope-dia of body image and human appearance (2) (pp. 711–717). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wee, C., Tan, S., & Cheok, K. (1995). Non-price determinants of intention to purchasecounterfeit goods. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19–47.

Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxurybrands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.

Woodside, A. G., Bernal, P. M., & Conduras, A. (2015). The general theory of culture, entre-preneurship, innovation, and quality-of-life: Comparing nurturing versus thwartingenterprise start-ups in BRIC, Denmark, Germany, and the United States. IndustrialMarketing Management, 53, 136–159.

Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics (2). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Xu, Y. (2008). The influence of public self-consciousness and materialism on youngconsumers' compulsive buying. Young Consumers, 9(1), 37–48.

Yang, R. (2012). The influence of public self-consciousness on Chinese consumer behavior forluxury fashion products: A cultural perspective. Raleigh: NC State University (MasterThesis). (http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/7535).

Yao, W. V. (2006). An Economic Analysis of Counterfeit Goods: the Case of China. Businessand public administration studies (1/1) (http://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/15/357/ Accessed 4.12.2015).

Yoo, B., & Lee, S. H. (2009). By original luxury fashion products or counterfeits? Advancesin Consumer Research, 36, 280–286.

Yoo, B., & Lee, S. H. (2012). Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with original fashionluxury brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each. Journal of BusinessResearch, 65(10), 1507–1515.

Yoo, B., & Lee, S. H. (2005). Do counterfeits promote original products? Hempstead, NY:Hofstra University.


https://etd.ohiolink.edu

https://etd.ohiolink.edu













http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2015/may/counterfeit-luxury-goods-051815.html/

http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2015/may/counterfeit-luxury-goods-051815.html/









http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html

http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html







http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00660417/










http://www.oecd.org/sti/38707619.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/sti/38707619.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2015-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2015-en


























http://www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?actionrticle&artid=

http://www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?actionrticle&artid=












http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html/




http://www.pravdareport.com/business/companies/05-09-2011/118952-brands-0/

http://www.pravdareport.com/business/companies/05-09-2011/118952-brands-0/























































http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/7535

http://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/15/357/

http://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/15/357/









Identifyingmoderatorsofbrandattachmentfordrivingcustomerpur...

Documents

Transcript of Identifyingmoderatorsofbrandattachmentfordrivingcustomerpur...